Global warming and "convenience"

thescouselander

Lynwen wrote: »

Well well well....... and I thought you had studied things like this, as you mentioned in another thread.

An aircraft travelling to America (1 way) from the UK consumes as much fuel as 10 cars travelling 24 hrs a day for a whole year!!!!!! well ok, its 9.8 cars (where they get the 9.8 from... could be a 3/4 of a car!!!! ha ha ha)

So tell me, how many planes travel to the USA EACH day from the UK???

Your sounding like Cameron, cycling to work everyday and a car carrying his briefcase following him!!!!!!!! douhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!! :rotfl:

Yes but to put things in perspective, the amount of CO2 emmited per passenger mile on a full aircraft is approximately equal to that of cars and busses.

Also, air travel only accounts for around 5% of the UKs CO2 emissions.

magyar

Lynwen wrote: »

Well well well....... and I thought you had studied things like this, as you mentioned in another thread.

No idea what you're talking about here. All I can remember is you were downright rude before, so not surprising you're off on one again.

Airline emissions account for only 5% of transportation-related emissions. Cars and road transport accounts for 82%. Ergo, car usage is worse for the planet than plane usage. Not rocket science, love.

*Edit* Out of interest went back and saw the thread you referred to. That was actually in relation to green electricity supply. I happen to know a lot about that not because I've 'studied things like this' but because I work in the power industry. What you said at the time was quite simply ignorant and wrong.

west_is_best

I only made a very innocent point..... I can not see what was arrogant in my point..

this is the thread so people can see what I pointed out... Im sorry if I offended you, but it's a point worth thinking about.


Green electric - thoughts please - MoneySavingExpert.com Forums

We are back to what OP was saying, its just a huge TAX con for the government and huge profits for developers and leccy companies..
SWALEC have today announced a huge profit this year again... It is so unfair for people who cant afford it...

magyar

Lynwen wrote: »

I only made a very innocent point..... I can not see what was arrogant in my point..

Did I say arrogant? I said ignorant.

You mentioned that you didn't understand how they can sell you green electricity when it comes through the same wires. I explained to you how it works and how they can justify its 'green'-ness.

You didn't seem to like that. Apparently you 'wish I knew what you knew'. :rotfl: Personally I think that eleven years experience of the power industry qualifies me to tell you how the system works.

Anyway, I'm sure the other people on this thread don't want to hear about this, nor care why you're stalking me from other threads.

cepheus

Cardew wrote: »

I think the above quote sums up reasoned debate nicely;

Nigel Lawson is widely regarded as being intellectually brilliant, by friend and foe alike.

However being sceptical about some aspects of the ‘man-made global warming’ theory, and daring to state those views, is sufficient for him to be branded an ‘ignoramus’ and anyone who thinks that those views have some merit, ‘scientifically illiterate’!

I haven’t a clue who is correct, and neither have you! The difference is you 'Believe' and opposition to that belief draws the reaction above!

The reason I call Lawson 'scientifically illiterate' is due to his lack of formal training in mathematics or science both of which are necessary to criticise GW meaningfully. (He took Politics, Philosophy and Economics). GW was part of my university education along with the formal means to assess scientific data in an unbiased manner. Not that it is necessary to analyse it in that much detail nowadays, the trend is quite dramatic and obvious over the last two decades, far more so than any other equivalent period and this coincides with the massive rise in GHG.




Hardly any scientists or those with good common sense have very much doubt about this. The likes of Lawson simply try to misinform the public and have scored a public relations success in spreading the myth of scepticism. The debate should have been over long ago.

Lawson's background means he must support big business and the established economic order whatever the evidence says. He also has considerable experience of manipulating minds for his own ends, otherwise called politics.

Ben84

I believe the climate changes with or without human influence, but that does not mean we're not affecting it. You can believe in both ideas, so proving one does not disprove the other.

All life forms have an effect on the environment and climate, in fact they don't so much affect it as create the climate. There's this idea that the environment and life on earth are unrelated, as if things live here and the planet's atmosphere and climate exists around them. It couldn't be further from the truth. The planet's atmosphere was greatly changed by early life forms that consumed CO2 and emitted oxygen, and it has continued to change and evolve with life on earth ever since.

While there is a lot of talk in the media about CO2 right now, I have always believed we're also changing the climate by significantly altering biodiversity. Individual plants/organisms might not have any noticeable effect on the environment, but on a large scale where many plants and animals group together they have a massive effect on the environment and climate.

Forests are an important example, they clearly interact with the planet on a big scale. The rain that was falling here today was potentially introduced to the atmosphere by the respiration of forests thousands of miles away. Without them the rainfall would greatly decrease in many areas, even stop entirely in some. By affecting the water table and introducing water vapour in to the atmosphere in large amounts, forests change global rainfall patterns, cloud cover and the quantities of water vapour in the atmosphere - all of which are major factors in local environments and the global climate itself.

Less obvious perhaps is that by covering large areas of the planet with vegetation, the solar adsorption and reflectivity of that land changes. This is more significant that it may sound. The materials the planet is made of, and covered with have a big influence on the way it responds to solar radiation.

Forests are also an important example as vast amounts have been cleared in recent history. Around 83% of the rainforest has been cleared since 1970. I haven't picked this figure because it's shocking, although I do find it shocking, it's actually a good representation of the situation in many places. Many countries that were once heavily forested are down to a fraction, even as low as 1-2% of their original forest cover.

Despite the many different areas it includes, human causes of climate change have become all about CO2 in the media. I suppose it's topical to us in developed countries as we emit the most CO2 per person, but it isn't the only issue. Human activity is making big changes all over the planet, many of which, like deforestation are clearly changing the environment and climate. I don't see any way to avoid this conclusion that doesn't require discrediting the data or throwing out a lot of conventional science and biology.

Cardew

cepheus wrote: »

The reason I call Lawson 'scientifically illiterate'

You didn't call him "scientifically illiterate" you called him an "ignoramous" .

The 'scientifically illiterate' term was reserved for those who 'want' to believe him.

Perhaps on reflection you might agree that your last couple of posts make no contribution to any form of reasoned debate on this subject. The term zealot comes to mind!

cepheus

Cardew wrote: »

Perhaps on reflection you might agree that your last couple of posts make no contribution to any form of reasoned debate on this subject. The term zealot comes to mind!

Well I've posted Lawson's background to demonstrate he has no formal scientific education, I have posted the the factual evidence that by itself (ignoring the theory) is sufficient to dismiss most sceptical claims and certainly would be irresponsible to ignore. The refutation of all the sceptical claims have been posted a hundred times before,

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

and it is getting as ridiculous as 'man didn't go to the moon' conspiracies.

I assure you Cardew the only conspiracy which is going on is the attempted brainwashing of the electorate to buy more and work harder while the likes of Lawson and his business colleagues stuff their pockets from the proceeds with a total disregard for the environment.

I have followed this for 25 years before most people even heard of GW. The more the evidence has grown in favour of anthropogenic GW the more business types have tried to play the sceptical card. The only question is not if, but how fast? The problem is that the IPCC constantly have their arms twisted by the cooperate lobby to tone down their comments such as feedback, and 'non-linear'. All their reports are also based on evidence that is usually 2 years out of date. Hence their official predictions are always an underestimate. Nearly every new report forecasts faster warming and sea level rise than the last, because of this non-linear effect.

geordie_joe

cepheus wrote: »

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

Have you read this link, and followed the links in the text?

It is so full of !!!!!! it is unbelievable!!!!!!!!!!!

At one point it says

First of all, it is worth bearing in mind that any data on global temperatures before about 150 years ago is an estimate, a reconstruction based on second-hand evidence such as ice cores and isotopic ratios. The evidence becomes sparser the further back we look, and its interpretation often involves a set of assumptions. In other words, a fair amount of guesswork.

Then it goes on to imply evidence if fractions of a degree in temperature changes 55 billion years ago are fact.

Read the quote again, it says any global temperature data more than 150 years old is an estimate, a reconstruction based on second-hand evidence. It then says "The evidence becomes sparser the further back we look, and its interpretation often involves a set of assumptions. In other words, a fair amount of guesswork.".

But then goes on to present temperature figures for 55 billion years ago as fact.

Not only that, but it also makes claims about sea levels millions and billions of years ago. How can it claim those figures as fact. If we can only guess at the temperature we can only guess at the sea level.

I can remember reading that fossils of fish found up mountains were thought to be proof of the flood. Then someone figured out that it wasn't the sea that was so high the fish died and ended up on top of mountains, it was that the mountains started life under the sea then grew.

If the land is continually being pushed up how can we know what the sea level was millions of years ago. Did the sea go down, or did the land go up?

Cardew

cepheus wrote: »

I assure you Cardew

You can 'assure' me of nothing!

You believe! - period!

My objection is not to your belief(you may well be right) but the fact that anyone who has any doubts is branded an Ignoramus/ scientifically illiterate or their motives questioned.

I have doubts(that may not be justified) and your irrational ranting is completely counter productive. Someone who can post such invective loses all credibility.

If you want to start a more rational discussion, perhaps you could start with discussing the formal scientific background and motives of Al Gore as opposed to Nigel Lawson - the former having been awarded Nobel [strike]power point [/strike]Peace prize.